cybernia:I think climate change is a good example. When you read an article about some new finding in climate science, you will rarely see a scientist quoted as saying, as you wrote, ..the overwhelming weight of evidence at the current point in time supports that conclusion." It's always definitive. It's not "the best evidence we have says that chickens will start exploding in 2011." It's "Chickens will start exploding in 2011. Period."

So when the chickens don't start exploding, the public starts to cast a wary eye.

Except that if you're going to compare global warming to chickens exploding, the chickens did explode -- so you really ought not complain that we wonder what the fark is wrong with all the exploding chicken contrarians.

Dr.PhD is talking to himself... Mr. Snow./consistent with every thread.

lolwut?

He's just pointing out that whenever me and Jon Snow (et al) confront people with the facts of the matter the contrarians always run away, so we end up basically talking to ourselves, like when double99 claimed it was a NASA study and then took off running when confronted on it. And he's right, that is consistent across any AGW thread.

You kinda have to read around the fact that his post looks like he was having a stroke when he wrote it though.

First of all, I continue to learn loads of info from you 'guys' and second:He's just pointing out that whenever me and Jon SnowIt's John Snow and I/I'm a guy who should never be agrammar nazi

Dr. Mojo PhD:cybernia: I think climate change is a good example. When you read an article about some new finding in climate science, you will rarely see a scientist quoted as saying, as you wrote, ..the overwhelming weight of evidence at the current point in time supports that conclusion." It's always definitive. It's not "the best evidence we have says that chickens will start exploding in 2011." It's "Chickens will start exploding in 2011. Period."

So when the chickens don't start exploding, the public starts to cast a wary eye.

Except that if you're going to compare global warming to chickens exploding, the chickens did explode -- so you really ought not complain that we wonder what the fark is wrong with all the exploding chicken contrarians.

No, the chickens didn't explode. They heated up, but not as fast or as badly as people thought they would. Anyway, I like my example. I originally thought pandas, but I like pandas. Hate chickens.

"And, once again: nobody is saying that because there is a scientific consensus it must be true. Can you try to grasp that? Nobody is saying that because there is a scientific consensus it must be true. What I am saying is that when there is a pervasive scientific consensus about something then that means that the overwhelming weight of evidence at the current point in time supports that conclusion. Of course new evidence might turn up. Of course there is always the possibility of a sudden paradigm shift arising from some unforeseen insight. But for the moment all we can do is take the best advice available to us."

I hesitated before walking into the middle of this...but. What you say is true but the the way many scientists and the lay "science types" talk they do tend to frame it in "true" terms.

For example, we're all probably familiar with the quote heard 'round the world comparing climate skeptics/deniers to "holocaust deniers." That is a most extreme example but too often that's the kind of attitude many in science take.

I think climate change is a good example. When you read an article about some new finding in climate science, you will rarely see a scientist quoted as saying, as you wrote, ..the overwhelming weight of evidence at the current point in time supports that conclusion." It's always definitive. It's not "the best evidence we have says that chickens will start exploding in 2011." It's "Chickens will start exploding in 2011. Period."

So when the chickens don't start exploding, the public starts to cast a wary eye.

Now, many say scientists shouldn't be in the public relations business, but given the..ahem...current climate, in which science is taking a PR beating with the public, maybe it's not such a bad idea. The way you say something for public consumption is important these days. Especially in an age where science has become politicized.

cybernia:No, the chickens didn't explode. They heated up, but not as fast or as badly as people thought they would. Anyway, I like my example. I originally thought pandas, but I like pandas. Hate chickens.

Oh but they did. They did explode. Global warming is to chickens exploding as no global warming is to no chickens exploding, right?

"And, once again: nobody is saying that because there is a scientific consensus it must be true. Can you try to grasp that? Nobody is saying that because there is a scientific consensus it must be true. What I am saying is that when there is a pervasive scientific consensus about something then that means that the overwhelming weight of evidence at the current point in time supports that conclusion. Of course new evidence might turn up. Of course there is always the possibility of a sudden paradigm shift arising from some unforeseen insight. But for the moment all we can do is take the best advice available to us."

I hesitated before walking into the middle of this...but. What you say is true but the the way many scientists and the lay "science types" talk they do tend to frame it in "true" terms.

For example, we're all probably familiar with the quote heard 'round the world comparing climate skeptics/deniers to "holocaust deniers." That is a most extreme example but too often that's the kind of attitude many in science take.

I think climate change is a good example. When you read an article about some new finding in climate science, you will rarely see a scientist quoted as saying, as you wrote, ..the overwhelming weight of evidence at the current point in time supports that conclusion." It's always definitive. It's not "the best evidence we have says that chickens will start exploding in 2011." It's "Chickens will start exploding in 2011. Period."

So when the chickens don't start exploding, the public starts to cast a wary eye.

Now, many say scientists shouldn't be in the public relations business, but given the..ahem...current climate, in which science is taking a PR beating with the public, maybe it's not such a bad idea. The way you say something for public consumption is important these days. Especially in an age where science has become politicized.

Dr. Mojo PhD:cybernia: No, the chickens didn't explode. They heated up, but not as fast or as badly as people thought they would. Anyway, I like my example. I originally thought pandas, but I like pandas. Hate chickens.

Oh but they did. They did explode. Global warming is to chickens exploding as no global warming is to no chickens exploding, right?

cybernia:Dr. Mojo PhD: cybernia: No, the chickens didn't explode. They heated up, but not as fast or as badly as people thought they would. Anyway, I like my example. I originally thought pandas, but I like pandas. Hate chickens.

Oh but they did. They did explode. Global warming is to chickens exploding as no global warming is to no chickens exploding, right?

Well, global warming, therefore exploding chickens.

Okay. Now you're starting to annoy me. ;)

You wouldn't be the first, and I doubt you'll be the last.

The fact is you seem to want to be switch analogies in midstream:

cybernia:I think climate change is a good example. When you read an article about some new finding in climate science, you will rarely see a scientist quoted as saying, as you wrote, ..the overwhelming weight of evidence at the current point in time supports that conclusion." It's always definitive. It's not "the best evidence we have says that chickens will start exploding in 2011." It's "Chickens will start exploding in 2011. Period."

cybernia:No, the chickens didn't explode. They heated up, but not as fast or as badly as people thought they would. Anyway, I like my example. I originally thought pandas, but I like pandas. Hate chickens.

You're switching from a binary choice to a continuum from the first statement to the second.

Nobody has seriously suggested the Earth was going to explode or fail or die because of global warming. At best any suggestions of the sort have always been framed in the sense that any serious disruption to the system we occupy should be treated as a serious threat because of the chaotic effects it may have on us. Displacement, droughts, that kind of thing. Similarly, you might treat all chest pains as potentially life-threatening until you know they aren't, as we frame the purpose of treating any perturbation to our natural environment as potentially disastrous to us. The AGW argument is not, as the contrarians frame it, one "Earth-first" or "granola-munching". It's a very anthropocentric argument, which always kind of amuses me when people make special pleading to AGW proponents that "CO2 is good for plants" or "high concentrations of CO2 is when life flourished", because that is the complete opposite of the point we're getting at. We aren't interested in saving the planet, we're interested in saving us.

Anyway, the original point is you seem to be substituting one analogy for another while keeping all the window dressing the same. Your first analogy is a binary choice -- it's a prediction. Either chickens will explode or they won't. But there is no equivalent in climate science re: AGW. Models attempt to predict the amount of heating, but nobody makes the claim that these models are gospel truth. Indeed they're acknowledged to be flawed and are being constantly improved upon. That is, after all, why they're called models and not pocket universes.

By the second analogy you make about chickens heating up a bit but not exploding, it seems that you're substituting in some extremely disastrous prediction that climate scientists have made based on these models that simply doesn't exist. That although yes, the Earth/chicken has heated up, it hasn't exploded. But this is no longer a meaningful analogy. Hence why I say yes, the chickens have exploded in going with your analogy -- we have observed the heating they have told us was occurring, just as we have observed the exploding chickens in your analogy.

There is no analog to "almost hotter" as there is to "almost exploded" -- something either is hotter, or it is not. It cannot be almost hotter than it was in any way that conveys any meaningful information. If something is hotter, it is hotter than something it is being compared to. For example, this water is hotter than that water, or this water is hotter than it was ten minutes ago. In this case, the Earth did get hotter, so, in running with your analogy, the chickens did in fact explode.

Dr. Mojo PhD:AlwaysRightBoy: First of all, I continue to learn loads of info from you 'guys' and second:

I think this is the first time I've seen sarcastic quotes implying we were women.

AlwaysRightBoy: It's John Snow and I

Actually, that would be Jon Snow.

Doctor, now that I'm on your couch: I am a visual person (I went to the Arts Students League on 57th street, School of Visual Arts on 23rd, did some classes at Pratt and the "New School" before it was new.. been in the ad bis for 30 plus years. I did NOT go to school for punctuation. Hence, that is why I love trying to write headlines on Fark. It's therapy. And enjoyable

Okay now I get it. Man, I'm slow. No, I was trying to use a humorous example using chickens to show the definitive nature of scientists' public statements. I wasn't clear enough.The chicken thing was not an analogy to climate change. Sorry about that.

Okay now I get it. Man, I'm slow. No, I was trying to use a humorous example using chickens to show the definitive nature of scientists' public statements. I wasn't clear enough.The chicken thing was not an analogy to climate change. Sorry about that.

Wow. Someone willing to read other people's posts and own up to your own mistakes. How the hell did you end up on Fark?

The 'war on science' is only an american right wing thing. From an outside point of view it is strange to see. A group that literally spends billions a year on science to develop the very latest weapons simultaneously declares that all scientists are money grubbing scam artists and everything they produce should be debated endlessly by joe sixpack.

Which is it? Do you like your smart phones, 5th generation fighter jets, antibiotics, etc. (i.e. does science work)? Or would you like to go back to sacrificing sheep to ensure a good harvest (i.e. get your science from the bible)?

/get your science from scientists and your lies from politicians ... they are the experts in their respective fiends.

Farking Canuck:cybernia: in which science is taking a PR beating with the public

The 'war on science' is only an american right wing thing. From an outside point of view it is strange to see. A group that literally spends billions a year on science to develop the very latest weapons simultaneously declares that all scientists are money grubbing scam artists and everything they produce should be debated endlessly by joe sixpack.

Which is it? Do you like your smart phones, 5th generation fighter jets, antibiotics, etc. (i.e. does science work)? Or would you like to go back to sacrificing sheep to ensure a good harvest (i.e. get your science from the bible)?

/get your science from scientists and your lies from politicians ... they are the experts in their respective fiends.

And scientists never lie? It's not just the right wing attacks. It's the public itself and it's just not in the US. It's worldwide. They don't trust them anymore.

"The largest ever survey of public values and attitudes toward science and technology involved face-to-face interviews in 2005 with almost 33,000 adults in 32 European countries. Four in five said that the authorities should formally oblige scientists to respect ethical standards, a result widely interpreted as indicating a lack of trust in scientists to police themselves." Link (new window)

There's a guy named Peter Sandman whose balliwick is something called "risk communication." His partner/wife gave a speech back in 2003 at a conference in Brussels called "Conveying Science into Policy: Science Communication and Environmental Decision-Making." This (new window) is an expansion of that speech.

"Scientists' diagnosis of the public as hysterical, panicky, ignorant, or irrational is usually a self-serving misdiagnosis. The reality is often much more threatening to the scientists' self-image: The public doesn't trust them, and often for good reason."

cybernia:And scientists never lie? It's not just the right wing attacks. It's the public itself and it's just not in the US. It's worldwide. They don't trust them anymore.

"The largest ever survey of public values and attitudes toward science and technology involved face-to-face interviews in 2005 with almost 33,000 adults in 32 European countries. Four in five said that the authorities should formally oblige scientists to respect ethical standards, a result widely interpreted as indicating a lack of trust in scientists to police themselves." Link (new window)

Scientists should always work on building trust but most of the poll results on that page don't really say that much, I don't think. Without an older survey for comparison the result stated in your quote would best be understood as people going with a 'common sense' answer - "Of course scientists should be obliged to adhere to ethical standards" - rather than an indication of changing attitudes.

Some other poll results from the link:

Almost one in four of 1,000 adults surveyed for the British Royal Society in 2002 didn't trust scientists in general to tell the truth.

A 2004 survey of 2,000 adult Canadians for federal science departments found almost 30 per cent expressing concern that science is "going too far and is hurting society rather than helping it."

These results map almost one-to-one with belief in creationism/lack of belief in evolution in the relevant countries. I don't think it can be inferred that the real actions of scientists or even the public image of scientists has much to do with the negative answers given. They certainly aren't, on their own, indicative of a trend towards greater mistrust for reasons given above.

Scientists should always work on building trust but most of the poll results on that page don't really say that much, I don't think. Without an older survey for comparison the result stated in your quote would best be understood as people going with a 'common sense' answer - "Of course scientists should be obliged to adhere to ethical standards" - rather than an indication of changing attitudes.

If the polls aren't reflective, then why are there conferences like the one mentioned in the article, called Trust in Science?

Some other poll results from the link:

Almost one in four of 1,000 adults surveyed for the British Royal Society in 2002 didn't trust scientists in general to tell the truth.

A 2004 survey of 2,000 adult Canadians for federal science departments found almost 30 per cent expressing concern that science is "going too far and is hurting society rather than helping it."

These results map almost one-to-one with belief in creationism/lack of belief in evolution in the relevant countries. I don't think it can be inferred that the real actions of scientists or even the public image of scientists has much to do with the negative answers given. They certainly aren't, on their own, indicative of a trend towards greater mistrust for reasons given above.

Wow. That's a leap.

From Nature, 1999: How to restore public trust in science. Unfortunately, behind a paywall

Just Google "Trust in Science" and you'll see how many articles there are that address the subject

Individual scientists lie, sure. Can you offer me one documented example of the vast majority of scientists in a give field participating in a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the public? I mean, leaving AGW out of the debate, can you show one case of this ever having happened?

And, to be clear, this has to be across the entire field. Not just one team of researchers, but pretty nearly every scientist involved in the field at every university and government research agency in the world.

Scientists should always work on building trust but most of the poll results on that page don't really say that much, I don't think. Without an older survey for comparison the result stated in your quote would best be understood as people going with a 'common sense' answer - "Of course scientists should be obliged to adhere to ethical standards" - rather than an indication of changing attitudes.

If the polls aren't reflective, then why are there conferences like the one mentioned in the article, called Trust in Science?

As I said, 'Scientists should always work on building trust.'

Wow. That's a leap.

Not really. If someone is telling you something you don't want to hear you're less likely to trust them. What is a leap is looking at a single instance of a poll and taking it as an indication that 'They don't trust them anymore' as if it represents a trend or a change. What was the percentage of distrust in scientists when they were well trusted?

From Nature, 1999: How to restore public trust in science. Unfortunately, behind a paywall

It appears to be an article written by two members of Greenpeace and is presumably arguing that scientists should stop supporting GM crops. Given your earlier comments about Greenpeace touting of this article is surprising.

Just Google "Trust in Science" and you'll see how many articles there are that address the subject

I have and it brought up a mixed bag. One of the top ten even stated that trust in scientists was very high, perhaps too high. Probably the most interesting was this one (new window), which is a report on trust in science. In a section entitled "Crisis of Trust" their first line is 'We argue that evidence of a genuine and generic "crisis of trust in science" is lacking.'

From Nature, 1999: How to restore public trust in science. Unfortunately, behind a paywall

Just Google "Trust in Science" and you'll see how many articles there are that address the subject

I do find it slightly incredible that science or scientists themselves are to blame for this phenomenon.

I find it far more credible that those who obfuscate and pump out junk science and pseudoscience are far more likely to be the cause of this mistrust. Take global warming for example.

They pump out papers like this one that Dr. Spencer wrote, a think tank does a write-up for Forbes that deliberately pushes the NASA appeal to authority and downplays Dr. Spencer, and people in this thread start parroting that it's a NASA study and actually defending that position when it's pointed out they're wrong.

It's like having two people, one who always tries to tell the truth and one who mostly just lies. The one who always lies will always claim that the one whose telling the truth is lying; that is, after all, the nature of a liar. Then the special pleading comes in -- special pleading we see in evidence in this thread. "Are you NEVER wrong?" "What are the chances he's ALWAYS right?" "How can anybody really believe this with all the questions I've raised about it?"

People, being people, fall for that line of spurious shiat. Hence science gets the label of mistrust when these junk scientists go free.

You can tell it's all a sham and all a charade, too. Notice how the junk scientists, despite claiming to only want to find the TruthTM only ever target the good scientists? Ever notice how these so-called Truth-seekers never attack other so-called Truth-seekers even when their stances are mutually exclusive or contradictory?

Notice how a person who claims that, for example, the Earth has not warmed at all will never go after a person who claims the Earth has warmed, but it's not anthropogenic in any way and there's nothing we can do about it? Notice how both of those personages will only ever go after the people who claim that the Earth has both warmed and that we have the power to control it? Isn't that odd, given that their hypotheses are completely contradictory, and even though both ostensibly want to find the truth, they never chastise the other for telling an untruth?

It's because, first, it makes a convenient smokescreen -- when you're trying to convince a population of, say, 100 people that something isn't true, you're banking on the odds that maybe 50 will believe one story and 50 will believe another. The likelihood of getting all the people on the same page with the same story is virtually nil. Furthermore, it allows a convenient shift in topics, because if one story is proven wrong or significant doubts can be raised about it, the next one can immediately be latched onto. Makes you wonder about the mentality of a person that can go "Global warming is false because X. Oh, X isn't true? Then global warming is false because of Y." Yet we see this all the time. Second, it makes a great way of creating artificial volume. Global warming isn't happening because the Earth isn't heating up/it's a hoax and the faked the data/the scientists in study X molested kids/the Earth is heating up but not as much/The Earth is heating up but we can't control it/God wouldn't let it. We see these arguments too, and even though they are, as stated, completely mutually exclusive and self-contradictory, they're only ever targeted at global warming and not at each other as well (which they ought to be if they were true, but they aren't.) It creates sufficient fear, uncertainty, and doubt that a person looking in would ask "If global warming is true, how can this many doubts be raised about it" -- never minding the fact that the doubts are, again, mutually exclusive, so the truly rational thinking man ought to ask himself "if global warming weren't true, how come all but one doubt raised about MUST CERTAINLY be a lie?"

Individual scientists lie, sure. Can you offer me one documented example of the vast majority of scientists in a give field participating in a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the public? I mean, leaving AGW out of the debate, can you show one case of this ever having happened?

And, to be clear, this has to be across the entire field. Not just one team of researchers, but pretty nearly every scientist involved in the field at every university and government research agency in the world.

I was just responding to your idea of saying the pols lie and the scientists are always truthful. I don't have any evidence of a whole field lying and I never suggested that was the case. But you seem to think that scientists don't lie.

The bottom line is that in the last decade or so, faith in scientists has gone down. That's not just my idea, it's a fact. I wish it wasn't that way, but I think they have only themselves to blame.

cybernia:The bottom line is that in the last decade or so, faith in scientists has gone down. That's not just my idea, it's a fact. I wish it wasn't that way, but I think they have only themselves to blame.

You keep saying this but so far have provided no real supporting evidence, just hearsay. A single instance of a poll cannot indicate a change. You'd need to know how much scientists were trusted before this time when 'faith in scientists has gone down'.

I found another report, when looking at that Greenpeace article you cited, titled Public Trust in Scientific Information (new window). It's a bit incomplete but it also comes to the conclusion that, despite reports to the contrary, 'In all regions the public seems to be interested in science, seems to trust scientists, and seems to distrust industry and governments'.

In answer to the question of why there is a perceived decline in trust, one answer they give argues that certain groups 'have a vested interest in depicting the situation as moving from bad to worse.'

I think if the world warms up things will be better for us. Not for individuals or individual nations but for the planet as a whole. Not for rich people on the coast who restrict access to the rest of us or people currently in the planetary goldilocks areas. Also not for the insane people who live where it already is too hot. People currently living in regular drought areas will still not have enough water.

No, the rest of us who are not on the fringes of possible habitation will benefit. Overall the planet will produce just as much food, maybe more and we may lose a minute fraction of the land area. Not a big problem. Please check out projections of arable land area change and you will see that the amount doesn`t change just where it is.

Anyone else remember reading how they (phil jones et al) *had* to make AGW seem worse than it was going to be otherwise people wouldn`t think it that big a deal?

dready zim:I think if the world warms up things will be better for us. Not for individuals or individual nations but for the planet as a whole. Not for rich people on the coast who restrict access to the rest of us or people currently in the planetary goldilocks areas. Also not for the insane people who live where it already is too hot. People currently living in regular drought areas will still not have enough water.

No, the rest of us who are not on the fringes of possible habitation will benefit. Overall the planet will produce just as much food, maybe more and we may lose a minute fraction of the land area. Not a big problem. Please check out projections of arable land area change and you will see that the amount doesn`t change just where it is.

Anyone else remember reading how they (phil jones et al) *had* to make AGW seem worse than it was going to be otherwise people wouldn`t think it that big a deal?

Maybe that`s because it isn`t that big a deal...

Hm. It's probably not all that strong of an argument if you claim that "things will be better" for "the planet as a whole", then immediately go on to exempt from this pronouncement what is probably a very large proportion of the world's population - people living on the coast, people living in places where it's "too hot", or people living in drought areas.

Okay. Given that carbon dioxide is a horrible poison, and will bake us all where we stand, we should gut the military, and put the money into removing carbon dioxide from the air... by hiring millions of our unemployed to pluck the molecules out of the air with tweezers. LOTS of overtime, because it is just that important.

Jim, you're such a pussy. Why don't you comment when the thread opens on the first day? Oh right, because more people would be around to ridicule your idiocy. Pussy.

I don't sit in my mom's basement continually refreshing Fark.com, as you apparently do. Some days, real lifeTM intrudes sufficiently that I don't get to read Fark at all. Some days I have a few hours when I can fark around, and when those times hit, I post. Sometimes there's nothing interesting to get involved in. And, if you were to actually look back, instead of making shiat up, you would find that sometimes I DO post on the first day... It's just not a guarantee, but a matter of timing. And, what the fark is it to you in the first place?

You know, I wonder what it is with all you useless assholes. You seem perversely interested in my posting habits. It's way simple, and I've discussed them many times. I certainly am never wanting for lower primates to fling crap in my direction. Most times, at least half of the warmtards are insulting me on an ongoing basis, and lying their asses off, while making claims they can read my mind. It's rather bizarre, actually.

I've never participated in pulling down a scientific hoax before. If anyone out there HAS, is this religious fervor, unthinking support, and instant attack of anyone questioning the orthodoxy normal in those situations?

Is he still posting in green in a feeble attempt to make his posts special?? (I put him on ignore quite a while back)

No, you feeble excuse for a sentient being, it's to support the Persian people in their struggle against a religiously fanatical government. And, it's sweet that you have me on ignore, as I can say whatever I want, and generally avoid having to play Special Education Instructor, and explain it to your dumb ass.

My bet - he's always here with his dozens of posts because he's some conservative blogger somewhere actually paid to do this stuff on multiple websites. He's always late because he doesn't read it directly off of Fark, he waits until someone else informs him on a conservative forum or something.

I'll point out yet again that the link you provide does not support your claims in bold. From that link:

Also, there are a number of innocent reasons that digit frequency may diverge from expected.

Ah, yes... The unwashed shows up to pick a peck of nits.

You see, real scientists talk like that. They point out where they might be wrong, where they didn't have a chance to collect sufficient data, and possible failures of their testing methods. Only anti-science jackasses claim that the science is finished, or that there is no arguing with a peer-reviewed paper.

Are you suggesting that if they allowed NO ROOM FOR ARGUMENT, like warmtards do, that you'd believe them?

I'll also point out yet again that showing a potential problem with one idea (that the last digits of a data set are all equally distributed) does not mean positive proof of one of the explanations for it (manufactured data). If this kind of argument of yours sounds familiar, it's the same kind of argument some creationists use. Because there are gaps in the evolutionary record does not mean God did it either.

You're not a nice person, so I'm going to quit giving you the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that you ARE stupid enough that the above argument makes sense to you.

Let me give you a closer example. Paternity tests can positively eliminate people as parents of an individual. But they can NEVER prove paternity. They indicate the LIKELIHOOD that a man, say, is the father of a child. If there is a DNA match, they state odds are better than 99.999% that the man is the father. In other words, the odds are less than 1 in 100,000 that someone else is the father... but it is POSSIBLE.

In exactly the same way, honesty demands that the data COULD have just shown up that way, just like a run of 50 heads flipping a quarter COULD happen. But it would be stupid to bet on it. Additionally, these odds are referred to, legally, as "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's why, when this same method was used as evidence that Bernie Madoff made up numbers to "cook the books" he got convicted. It's good enough to hold up in court, so, if it's not good enough for you, you can kiss my ass.

Well at least he's evolved from claiming GISS and CRU show manipulation because Hansen wrote an entirely new model that took common criticisms and concerns into account using an expanded data set. He ran with that one for months.

Is this a simply inability to understand what I was saying, or are you deliberately mis-stating what I said? Just curious.

Except that if you're going to compare global warming to chickens exploding, the chickens did explode -- so you really ought not complain that we wonder what the fark is wrong with all the exploding chicken contrarians.

Global Warming's chicken didn't explode, it shriveled.

Hansen's prediction is for carbon dioxide levels remaining at 1988 levels, although in reality they have skyrocketed. If the error in his prediction remains the same, there is likely to be NO increase in temperature by 2100. The error in his prediction is MUCH higher than the error in the prediction "the temperature will not change."

In a case where nature pimp-slaps one's hypothesis so vigorously, the only rational approach is to discard the hypothesis, and develop another. Or, alternatively, to start selling ACTUAL, rather than figurative, snake oil. Whichever.

GeneralJim:Damnhippyfreak: I'll point out yet again that the link you provide does not support your claims in bold. From that link:

Also, there are a number of innocent reasons that digit frequency may diverge from expected.Ah, yes... The unwashed shows up to pick a peck of nits.

You see, real scientists talk like that. They point out where they might be wrong, where they didn't have a chance to collect sufficient data, and possible failures of their testing methods. Only anti-science jackasses claim that the science is finished, or that there is no arguing with a peer-reviewed paper.

Are you suggesting that if they allowed NO ROOM FOR ARGUMENT, like warmtards do, that you'd believe them?

First off, the problem isn't with the link you provided. It's how you're dishonestly mischaracterizing it, and attempting to state that it supports a conclusion it does not, and cannot make.It's not just that particular analysis might be wrong, but it does not say what you claim it does. Again, there is multiple reasons why the distributions of digits might not be equal. That such an unequal distribution exists does not mean that one of the possible reasons for it is more likely.

If you're going to talk about "anti-science jackasses", what would you call someone who purposefully misrepresents research (as you appear to be doing)?

GeneralJim:Damnhippyfreak: I'll also point out yet again that showing a potential problem with one idea (that the last digits of a data set are all equally distributed) does not mean positive proof of one of the explanations for it (manufactured data). If this kind of argument of yours sounds familiar, it's the same kind of argument some creationists use. Because there are gaps in the evolutionary record does not mean God did it either.You're not a nice person, so I'm going to quit giving you the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that you ARE stupid enough that the above argument makes sense to you.

Let me give you a closer example. Paternity tests can positively eliminate people as parents of an individual. But they can NEVER prove paternity. They indicate the LIKELIHOOD that a man, say, is the father of a child. If there is a DNA match, they state odds are better than 99.999% that the man is the father. In other words, the odds are less than 1 in 100,000 that someone else is the father... but it is POSSIBLE.

In exactly the same way, honesty demands that the data COULD have just shown up that way, just like a run of 50 heads flipping a quarter COULD happen. But it would be stupid to bet on it. Additionally, these odds are referred to, legally, as "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's why, when this same method was used as evidence that Bernie Madoff made up numbers to "cook the books" he got convicted. It's good enough to hold up in court, so, if it's not good enough for you, you can kiss my ass.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 639x426]

The first analogy you present isn't an exact fit in that what you're doing is making claims beyond the scope of the test. In the same way that a paternity test may "state odds are better than 99.999% that the man is the father", the link you provided states that there is a divergence from an even distribution of digits, and nothing more. What you're doing would be equivalent to stating that the paternity test prove that the father deeply loved the mother and wanted to have children (just one of the possible explanations for the result of the paternity test). Of course, this is not supported by the paternity test, just as your claim of "shows it was manufactured by humans" is not supported by the chi-square GOF test in your link.

We can also take on your analogy of coin flips here. What you're doing is, upon finding a run of 50 heads, immediately accusing the researcher of fraud. The problem could have been a fault in the apparatus used to flip the coin or to detect the result. Simply finding a run of 50 heads by itself does not prove one of the possible reasons for that finding, or even suggests the likelihood of one of those possible reasons being correct.

You would have had more of a point here had I been claiming that the chi-square GOF test that the author of the link you presented is not conclusive because the pThe problem is that you're claiming something the test does not support.

This is really basic stuff here. If you're having problems with recognizing why you're misrepresenting the link you provided, you're probably not approaching this topic rationally. However, if you're legitimately having problems grasping why you're misrepresenting your link, I can quickly crank out a solid demonstration if you wish.

Damnhippyfreak:You would have had more of a point here had I been claiming that the chi-square GOF test that the author of the link you presented is not conclusive because the pThe problem is that you're claiming something the test does not support.

Oops. I must have accidentally deleted some of this. What I wished to say:

"You would have had more of a point here had I been claiming that the chi-square GOF test that the author of the link you presented is not conclusive because the p-value of less than 0.05 is somehow insufficient."

Damnhippyfreak:Damnhippyfreak: You would have had more of a point here had I been claiming that the chi-square GOF test that the author of the link you presented is not conclusive because the pThe problem is that you're claiming something the test does not support.

Oops. I must have accidentally deleted some of this. What I wished to say:

"You would have had more of a point here had I been claiming that the chi-square GOF test that the author of the link you presented is not conclusive because the p-value of less than 0.05 is somehow insufficient."

That being said, upon closer examination there are some problems with how the author actually executed that test, as well as some silly mistakes on his page. That's a different kettle of fish, however, and those problems are besides the idea that the test performed does not "shows it was manufactured by humans".

cybernia: No, the chickens didn't explode. They heated up, but not as fast or as badly as people thought they would. Anyway, I like my example. I originally thought pandas, but I like pandas. Hate chickens.

Oh but they did. They did explode. Global warming is to chickens exploding as no global warming is to no chickens exploding, right?

Nobody has seriously suggested the Earth was going to explode or fail or die because of global warming.

Of course they have. Particularly pernicious with this hoax, since it is fully supported by government, is that it is being force-fed to our children. For some reason, they trust their teachers, even when their teachers are teaching about Piltdown Man. Says one child in a letter to the President:

"We are going to die because of global warming, so how could children be the future? Scientists who study and research the changes on the planet notice the problem were going to be facing in the near future. Earth is forming into a fireball, in which he human race can not survive."

At best any suggestions of the sort have always been framed in the sense that any serious disruption to the system we occupy should be treated as a serious threat because of the chaotic effects it may have on us.

"At best?" BEST? Oh, I see. You're one of those religious fanatic doomsday cults, who WANT humanity punished for their sins. Well, keep your religious perversion out of the science threads.

It's a very anthropocentric argument, which always kind of amuses me when people make special pleading to AGW proponents that "CO2 is good for plants" or "high concentrations of CO2 is when life flourished", because that is the complete opposite of the point we're getting at. We aren't interested in saving the planet, we're interested in saving us.

I'm glad your ignorance amuses you. You must find yourself endless enjoyment that way. The argument about CO2 being good for plants is used to counter the warmtard argument that the planet warming up will somehow starve everyone by killing plants. There has always been more biomass, and more biodiversity, during climate optima. The term "optimum" should be a clue that heat is okay.

A 2004 survey of 2,000 adult Canadians for federal science departments found almost 30 per cent expressing concern that science is "going too far and is hurting society rather than helping it."

These results map almost one-to-one with belief in creationism/lack of belief in evolution in the relevant countries. I don't think it can be inferred that the real actions of scientists or even the public image of scientists has much to do with the negative answers given. They certainly aren't, on their own, indicative of a trend towards greater mistrust for reasons given above.

Well, you ARE making a good case that uneducated jackasses shouldn't be allowed near statistics. Was that your intent?

If 30% feel that "science goes too far," whatever that means, and 30% are religious, you are ready to jump out there and assume that they are "almost one-to-one" the same people? Nice. Stupid, but nice.

Individual scientists lie, sure. Can you offer me one documented example of the vast majority of scientists in a give field participating in a deliberate conspiracy to mislead the public? I mean, leaving AGW out of the debate, can you show one case of this ever having happened?

No, let's NOT leave AGW out of the debate. This hoax was only EVER a hoax by fewer than a dozen people, the ones touched by the slimy influence of the U.N. bureaucrats. It's amazing, but that's all it took. And now, one of those, Phil Jones, has admitted much of the hoax is untrue, in a "I'm not saying we were cannibals, but we DID kill and eat people" kind of way. In that way, he announced that Michael Mann falsified his "hockey stick" graph, and tried desperately to back it up by altering data, and using "voodoo science."

For it's part, the U.N. has PUBLISHED its intent to use climate issues as a justification for redistributing wealth, and the co-chair of the IPCC working group has verified this. They don't have any shame about it.

When you add in that NASA GISS (James Hansen) and the Hadley CRU (Phil Jones) have had their data sets proven to be manufactured data, much like being declared the daddy on Jerry Springer's and Jeremy Kyle's shows, it begins to look like only an idiot could still believe that "science" supports the alarmist conclusions of people like James Hansen. A quick examination of Fark climate threads will do nothing to disabuse you of that idea.

I see the green text shot gun thread shiatter is in full force and claiming it's all a conspiracy again.

For anyone unfamiliar with him: he's previously claimed, in all seriousness, that the atmosphere used to be as dense as wood. All the various idiocies he's posted here are rehashes of things that have been shown to be either categorically incorrect or not at all supported by the available information.

Yet, here he is trying to make the various lies and deliberate misinterpretations seem valid by repeating them as much as possible.

First off, the problem isn't with the link you provided. It's how you're dishonestly mischaracterizing it, and attempting to state that it supports a conclusion it does not, and cannot make.It's not just that particular analysis might be wrong, but it does not say what you claim it does. Again, there is multiple reasons why the distributions of digits might not be equal. That such an unequal distribution exists does not mean that one of the possible reasons for it is more likely.

If you're going to talk about "anti-science jackasses", what would you call someone who purposefully misrepresents research (as you appear to be doing)?

I would call them Damnhippyfreak. The author lists the raw data for the auditing run. The author gives a reference so that you can run the program on the NASA GISS data yourself. If you have trouble figuring out what the auditing run data mean, read up on the concept, and the chi-square method.

You don't have a reasonable gripe here. Figuratively, Jerry Springer has announced that James Hansen is the father of the data. Most people don't make themselves look stupid by arguing that it's probably that one in 100,000 chance, and she was knocked up by someone who matches your DNA by chance. I'm guessing that you WOULD argue that. These results are "beyond a reasonable doubt," and it is approximately as likely that Chinese spies altered the data while hacking NASA's computers, just to make Hansen look bad. But, feel free to leave the sand in your vagina, and whine away.

GeneralJim:Damnhippyfreak: First off, the problem isn't with the link you provided. It's how you're dishonestly mischaracterizing it, and attempting to state that it supports a conclusion it does not, and cannot make.It's not just that particular analysis might be wrong, but it does not say what you claim it does. Again, there is multiple reasons why the distributions of digits might not be equal. That such an unequal distribution exists does not mean that one of the possible reasons for it is more likely.

If you're going to talk about "anti-science jackasses", what would you call someone who purposefully misrepresents research (as you appear to be doing)?I would call them Damnhippyfreak. The author lists the raw data for the auditing run. The author gives a reference so that you can run the program on the NASA GISS data yourself. If you have trouble figuring out what the auditing run data mean, read up on the concept, and the chi-square method.

You don't have a reasonable gripe here. Figuratively, Jerry Springer has announced that James Hansen is the father of the data. Most people don't make themselves look stupid by arguing that it's probably that one in 100,000 chance, and she was knocked up by someone who matches your DNA by chance. I'm guessing that you WOULD argue that. These results are "beyond a reasonable doubt," and it is approximately as likely that Chinese spies altered the data while hacking NASA's computers, just to make Hansen look bad. But, feel free to leave the sand in your vagina, and whine away.

Again, the analysis is ok (there's some issues there, but it could be worse). It's just that said analysis does not say what you think it does. Re-read what I've put in bold above. But you don't have to take my word on it, but instead, you can listen to the author of the link you used (David Stockwell):Steven: "Evidence of divergence is not proof of fraud or cheating." That is right and I have said that.

there are a number of innocent reasons that digit frequency may diverge from expected

From comments elsewhere (new window):Please note I haven't claimed of manipulation at this stage. I want to take a closer look at where in the file the deviations are the greatest. Its possible it has something to do with low numbers too, as the format used of 0.01C results in single digits around 1940, but two significant digits elsewhere. I don't know at this stage.

More from the same site (new window):I am not saying at this stage that the result for GISS is intentional or cheating. It could be an artifact of the way the data are prepared, how the gaps are filled in, a hundred things. Its a pretty obvious form of analysis and you have to start somewhere.

I mean, you're even going directly against what even the author of the link is claiming.

Dr. Mojo PhD:Notice how a person who claims that, for example, the Earth has not warmed at all will never go after a person who claims the Earth has warmed, but it's not anthropogenic in any way and there's nothing we can do about it? Notice how both of those personages will only ever go after the people who claim that the Earth has both warmed and that we have the power to control it?

...but not after the people who claim that the Earth has warmed, that we have the power to control it, but that it's actually a good thing the world is getting warmer and so we shouldn't do anything to try and slow it down.

GeneralJim:The author gives a reference so that you can run the program on the NASA GISS data yourself

On a side note, the site your link refers to is defunct. However, the analysis is a simple one - you can do it with pen and paper. If we go with the exact same analysis that the author in your link used (I have some severe reservations about certain aspects of it, but that's a separate argument), and apply, it, say, to the monthly HadCET data set that you seem to be fond of, you come up with the following:

Does this also mean (according to you) that the HadCET data set "was manufactured by humans"? I'm ready to be impressed if you manage to figure out the obvious reasons why this isn't true, BTW. Hints: There's something to do with the structure of the underlying data, and a point about variance.

What this should be demonstrating to you, if you didn't somehow grasp it before is that finding an unequal distribution does mean proof that it "was manufactured by humans, and is not valid instrument data".